22036 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this notice, call 

or email BM1 Adam Kraft, Prevention 

Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake 

Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at 414–747– 

7154, e-mail Adam.D.Kraft@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast 

Guard will enforce the Safety Zone; 

Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, 

Chicago, IL listed in 33 CFR 165.931 for 

the following events: 

Navy Pier Fireworks; on May 28, 2011 from 

10 p.m. through 10:30 p.m.; on June 1, 2011 

from 9:15 p.m. through 9:45 p.m.; on June 4, 

2011 from 10 p.m. through 10:30 p.m.; on 

June 8, 2011 from 9:15 p.m. through 9:45 

p.m.; on June 11, 2011 from 10 p.m. through 

10:30 p.m.; on June 15, 2011 from 9:15 p.m. 

through 9:45 p.m.; on June 18, 2011 from 10 

p.m. through 10:30 p.m.; on June 22, 2011 

from 9:15 p.m. through 9:45 p.m.; on June 25, 

2011 from 10 p.m. through 10:30 p.m.; and 

on June 29, 2011 from 9:15 p.m. through 9:45 

p.m. 

All vessels must obtain permission 

from the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake 

Michigan, or his or her on-scene 

representative to enter, move within or 

exit the safety zone. Vessels and persons 

granted permission to enter the safety 

zone shall obey all lawful orders or 

directions of the Captain of the Port, 

Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her onscene representative. While within a 

safety zone, all vessels shall operate at 

the minimum speed necessary to 

maintain a safe course. 

This notice is issued under authority 

of 33 CFR 165.931 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). 

In addition to this notice in the Federal 

Register, the Coast Guard will provide 

the maritime community with advance 

notification of these enforcement 

periods via broadcast Notice to Mariners 

or Local Notice to Mariners. The 

Captain of the Port, Sector Lake 

Michigan, will issue a Broadcast Notice 

to Mariners notifying the public when 

enforcement of the safety zone 

established by this section is suspended. 

If the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake 

Michigan, determines that the safety 

zone need not be enforced for the full 

duration stated in this notice, he or she 

may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners 

to grant general permission to enter the 

safety zone. The Captain of the Port, 

Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her onscene representative may be contacted 

via VHF Channel 16. 

Dated: April 7, 2011. 

S.R. Schenk, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of 

the Port, Lake Michigan, Acting. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9531 Filed 4–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1036; FRL–9297–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Interstate Transport of 

Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

‘‘Interference With Visibility’’ 

Requirement 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving the 

Colorado Interstate Transport State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, 

submitted on March 31, 2010, 

addressing the requirements of Clean 

Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

for the 1997 ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, in this 

Federal Register action EPA is fully 

approving those portions of the 

Colorado March 31, 2010 submission 

that address the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement 

prohibiting a state’s emissions from 

interfering with any other state’s 

required measures to protect visibility 

for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

This action is being taken under section 

110 of the CAA. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective May 20, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1036. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–6144, 

dygowski.laurel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words Colorado and State 

mean the State of Colorado. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background Information 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. Background Information 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5). This 

action is being taken in response to the 

promulgation of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of 

the CAA requires states to submit SIPs 

to address a new or revised NAAQS 

within 3 years after promulgation of 

such standards, or within such shorter 

period as EPA may prescribe. Section 

110(a)(2) lists the elements that such 

new SIPs must address, as applicable, 

including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which 

pertains to interstate transport of certain 

emissions. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA 

requires that a SIP must contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity within the state from emitting 

any air pollutant in amounts which will: 

(1) Contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in any 

other state; (2) interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS by any 

other state; (3) interfere with any other 

state’s required measures to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality; 

or (4) interfere with any other state’s 

required measures to protect visibility. 

On June 11, 2008, the State of 

Colorado submitted to EPA an Interstate 

Transport SIP addressing all four 

elements of the interstate transport 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22037 

PM2.5 NAAQS. In response to EPA’s 

concerns regarding the June 11, 2008 

submission, the State later submitted 

two superceding interstate transport SIP 

revisions: (a) A June 18, 2009 

submission addressing the requirements 

of elements (1) and (2) of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS; and (b) a March 31, 2010 

submission addressing the requirements 

of elements (3) and (4) for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS and of elements (1) 

through (4) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On February 14, 2011, EPA published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) 

for the State of Colorado. The NPR 

proposed approval of the sections of the 

Colorado Interstate Transport SIP 

submitted March 31, 2010 that address 

the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

‘‘interference with visibility protection’’ 

requirement for the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

II. Final Action 

EPA is partially approving the 

sections of the Colorado Interstate 

Transport SIP submitted March 31, 2010 

that address the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) ‘‘interference with 

visibility protection’’ requirement for the 

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. On 

January 13, 2010, the Colorado Air 

Quality Control Commission (AQCC) 

adopted interstate transport SIP 

revisions addressing the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS, and the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Colorado submitted 

these revisions to EPA on March 31, 

2010. In this Federal Register action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

sections of the March 31, 2010 

submissions that address element (4), 

‘‘interference with visibility protection,’’ 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

As noted earlier, in this rulemaking 

EPA is evaluating only the Colorado SIP 

revisions of the March 31, 2010 

submission that address the 

requirements of element (4), prohibiting 

sources in Colorado from emitting 

pollutants from interfering with any 

other state’s measures to protect 

visibility, for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA has already taken final 

action on elements (1) and (2) for ozone 

(see 75 FR 31306 and 75 FR 71029, 

respectively). EPA will be taking action 

on elements (1)–(3) for PM2.5 and 

element (3) for ozone in a separate 

action. 

III. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it approves a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by June 20, 2011. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur oxides. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: April 6, 2011. 

Carol Rushin, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
22038 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart G—Colorado 

■ 2. Section 52.352 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.352 Interstate transport. 

Addition to the Colorado State 

Implementation Plan of the Colorado 

Interstate Transport SIP regarding the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for the 

‘‘significant contribution’’, the ‘‘interfere 

with maintenance’’, and ‘‘interference 

with visibility protection’’ requirements, 

submitted by the Governor’s designee 

on June 18, 2009 and March 31, 2010. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9580 Filed 4–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–1078; FRL–9293–6] 

Revision to the South Coast Portion of 

the California State Implementation 

Plan, CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 

1318 Tracking System 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve a source-specific State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for 

the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (District) portion 

of the California SIP. This sourcespecific SIP revision is known as the 

CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318 

Tracking System. The SIP revision 

consists of enabling language and the 

AB 1318 Tracking System to revise the 

District’s SIP approved New Source 

Review (NSR) program. The SIP revision 

allows the District to transfer offsetting 

emission reductions for particulate 

matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

(PM10) and one of its precursors, sulfur 

oxides (SOX), to the CPV Sentinel 

Energy Project, which will be a natural 

gas fired power plant. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 20, 2011. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3524, yannayon.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Evaluation of Source-Specific SIP Revision 

A. What action is EPA finalizing? 

B. Public Comments and Responses to 

Comments 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 13563 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Population 

I. Background 

The proposed Sentinel Energy Project 

is designed to be a nominally rated 850 

megawatt electrical generating facility 

covering approximately 37 acres within 

Riverside County, adjacent to Palm 

Springs, California. EPA’s proposal for 

this action contained a detailed 

description of the project and the Clean 

Air Act’s (CAA) requirements for offsets 

during New Source Review permitting. 

76 FR 2294 (January 13, 2011) With our 

proposal to approve this SIP revision, 

EPA attached the complete list of PM10

and SOX offsetting emission reductions 

that are being transferred in the AB 1318 

Tracking System to our Technical 

Support Document (TSD). 

Documentation for each of the offsetting 

emission reductions listed in the 

attachment to the TSD was included in 

the docket for the proposal in hard copy 

at EPA’s offices as well as other 

locations. For additional background 

information please see the January 13, 

2011 proposed notice for this action. (76 

FR 2294) 

II. Evaluation of Source-Specific SIP 

Revision 

A. What is the rule that EPA is 

finalizing? 

EPA is finalizing a SIP revision for the 

South Coast portion of the California 

SIP. The SIP revision will be codified in 

40 CFR 52.220 by incorporating by 

reference the Offset Requirements for 

the Proposed CPV Sentinel Power Plant, 

including the CPV Sentinel Energy 

Project AB 1318 Tracking System, as 

adopted by the District. 

The SIP revision provides a federally 

approved and enforceable mechanism 

for the District to transfer PM10 and SOX

offsetting emissions reductions from the 

District’s internal bank to the Sentinel 

Energy Project and to track those 

emissions credits through the AB 1318 

Tracking System. 

B. Public Comment and Final Action 

In response to our January 13, 2011 

proposed rule, we received four 

comments, one each from the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

(District), Michael Carroll of Latham & 

Watkins LLP, the Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC), and the Law 

Offices of Angela Johnson-Mezaros on 

behalf of California Communities 

Against Toxics and Communities for a 

Better Environment (jointly referred to 

herein as ‘‘CCAT’’). Copies of each 

comment letter have been added to the 

docket and are accessible at 

regulations.gov. The comment from the 

District supported EPA’s analysis and 

proposed source-specific SIP revision 

and provided an errata sheet correcting 

minor typos and the amount of SOX

offsets available in the AB1318 Tracking 

System (reduced the quantity by 92 lbs). 

The comment from Latham & Watkins 

was also supportive of our proposed 

action. The comment from NRDC 

generally opposed the SIP revision but 

did not provide any specific grounds for 

its opposition or raise any specific 

issues. To the extent that NRDC 

generally opposes the SIP revision, our 

response to its general opposition is 

included below with our response to 

CCAT’s more specific comments. We 

have summarized CCAT’s comments 

(based on the structure of their comment 

letter) and provide our response to each 

comment below. 

Comment I: CCAT comments that 

EPA did not allow meaningful public 

participation on the SIP revision for 

several reasons and that approval of the 

SIP revision based on the available 

information would be arbitrary and 

capricious. 

Comment I.A: CCAT contends the 

regulatory text of the SIP revision is too 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES